Approximately 16 per cent of Australian households change their residence in any given year. Just over half stay within the same metropolitan area and another quarter remain within the same statistical region. About 11 per cent of households make a longer, inter-regional, move. In this process of changing residence, however, not all population groups fare equally well. Certain groups, particularly disadvantaged households with limited choices or those forced to move by external circumstances may find their situation worsened by the move. This report examines population movements and internal migration decisions from the perspective of social justice. Drawing upon a broad range of literature encompassing urban policy, social justice and internal migration, this report develops a framework---termed the Social Justice Checklist---for interpreting the social justice implications of migration decisions. The Social Justice Checklist emphasises that population movements take place within existing socio-spatial structures. The social location of movers (within the broader social structure) and the spatial dimensions of the move are equally important elements of social justice principles. The basic dimensions of the Social Justice Checklist include an understanding of the nature and scale of population movement; the decision-making behind the move; the spatial dimensions of the move; and a number of broad socio-spatial issues such as the impact of the move on the real income of the household, on patterns of segregation, and on the equitable distribution of a broad range of urban goods and resources (employment, transport facilities, community services). This report then applies the Social Justice Checklist to four common types of move: moves to outer suburban areas; inter-regional moves; international migration; and forced moves. This exercise draws primarily on available literature and studies, but in addition provides some original analyses of the 1987 Internal Migration Survey. For each type of move, the nature, scale and characteristics of the move (and movers) are described, followed by an interpretation of the move from social justice principles. Particular groups of movers highlighted as potentially disadvantaged in social justice terms include lower income movers to under-serviced outer suburban areas, unemployed making long distance moves to coastal regions in New South Wales and Queensland, recently arrived migrants to capital cities, and low income private renters forced to move, with the most extreme example being the homeless. The report also indicates that a focus on the social justice implications of mobility can shift attention away from immobility. In many cases it is the sheer immobility of households that creates disadvantage. Residents of declining rural regions where property values are one-quarter to one-half of those in capital cities are in a sense trapped in those areas. An even more extreme example of immobility is the plight of women trapped in situations of domestic violence with no safe alternative housing options. The report concludes with several recommendations for further research into the links between mobility and social justice, suggesting that only innovative research designs and policy formulae that place the household in the context of its location can provide an adequate response to mobility and well-being. [Executive summary]

Publication type

Book

Source

Social Justice Research Program into Locational Disadvantage reports ; no. 11